TexasCHLforum.com

myntalfloss wrote:

JALLEN wrote:

myntalfloss wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

myntalfloss wrote:Does anyone else think we're kind of expressing a cognitive dissonance? We have insisted for years that 'guns don't kill people, people do',(which I firmly believe) and yet when Obama, (sorry, Satan) suggests checking out the people, not the guns, we get our panties in a wad. Is there anything that we law-abiding gun owners will accept without defaulting to the ‘black helicopters’ scenario?

They need to focus on enforcing the laws already in effect. There are plenty of known armed criminals that are running lose killing and robbing people. They need to focus on the criminals and leave the law abiding alone

I agree about focusing on laws in effect and known criminals. The problem seems to be with the unknown criminal. Most of these asshats that are giving us a bad name have a history of bad behavior but not until they act out with a gun do they become known. Background checks don't give me heartburn and I'd love to see a mandatory sentence for a crime with a gun to be stacked on top of any other sentences.

There are laws on the books for that, with mandatory prison time, but these are usually the first to be dropped in plea negotiations, according to many working on both sides of the crime sausage factory.

I don't know how you make it mandatory that filed charges cannot be dropped, or that the prosecution MUST file all possible charges. You can't ban plea bargaining without a hideous increase in judges and courtrooms and court appointed lawyers.

Shooting them in the act is the most efficient, no inefficient trial proceedings, no expensive prison stays, no bogus rehab programs, no recidivism, no probation foolishness, and you are pretty sure to shoot the right perp, no alibis about being in Peoria that night.

I'm with you on the difficulty of trying to put those kind of mandetory laws in effect but it could be done. As in the forfiture of property in drug cases.

Shooting the on the spot would certainly give me the warm and fuzzies. I often thought that what they should do with hijackers. Lead them off the plane and shoot 'em on the tarmac. If you think mandetory sentences would be hard to enact, can you imagine getting that passed.

And then there's the issue that most criminals are not caught in the act and given Texas' piss-poor record of getting capital cases overturned, there' d have to a big Mulligan clause in the law to cover the shooting of innocent people. But hey, can't make an omlet w/o breaking a few eggs, right?

It's true most are not caught in the act. You have to play the hand that is dealt.

I have no problem with extreme caution when the perp is not caught in the act, given the appalling instances of convicting the wrong person. Think of the difference between L.H. Oswald, who was not seen doing the acts, and Jack Ruby, who was captured and arrested doing the act. Many of us saw it live on TV!

Nor am I talking about post arrest executions. I favor homeowners shooting home break in perps, store clerks killing armed robbers, etc., self defense. When some animal opens up at a school or mall, a licensed carrier, whether O or C, ought to be encouraged, or at least not discouraged, to put us out of that fool's misery.

parabelum wrote: Maybe under different administration I'd feel more at ease, but this one, no sir.

I completely understand unease and distrust. I'm there with you. I'm quite willing to say "do nothing" though, although I understand why many people are.

canvasbck wrote: If your looking for compromise, here is my idea of compromise, and one that may make a difference in gun crimes:
1. Develop an online background check system accessible by citizens, straight up yes or no. No details

100% agree with you - I believe I've proposed the same sort of solution. It's a good idea. Red light / Green light. That's all you get. I'd add the ability to "clear" firearm serial numbers. Make it a requirement for a private sale. If you sell to a "red" guy, you're liable criminally. If you sell to a "green" guy - you indemnified civil/criminal.

canvasbck wrote: 2. Require the background check be done for all sales at gunshows and internet gun sales, face to face individual sales not subject to background checks.
(anti's should love 1 and 2)

Politically, I'd position this differently. I'd agree to background checks for "all transactions" and ask for something in return. Essentially, if we require private parties to clear the person they're selling to and require all other ypes of transactions to be FFL, that covers all the cases. We can call it "universal background" or whatever. It really changes very little, other than closing the private party loophole - in return you protect buyers and sellers. Even if I got nothing in return, I'd want to be able to validate who I'm selling to.

canvasbck wrote: 3. Repeal the NFA (no need to restrict access to class III weapons for citizens who have been background checked)

Honestly, I don't care... Probably politically untenable currently, but I'd take it if I could get it. I'd like a silencer for the backyard, without having to spend $900 on a 10/22 after your done with all the NFA drama. Class-3 stuff is cool - but again, it's touchy.

canvasbck wrote: 4. Increase mandatory minimums for crimes committed with firearms

Don't agree with mandatory minimums - they get used for purposes and cases that they don't fit and take away judges ability to use their brains. I also don't think they dissuade criminals. If jail terms reduced crimes, we'd have cranked 'em up already.

canvasbck wrote: 5. National shall issue concealed carry

100% onboard...

Something a friend wrote that you might appreciate.... Posted on the Book of Faces... Login not required
(I don't do FB and I can view the linked page)

LINK to full post.

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php? ... 9681133490

"Obama is baffled why gun violence is common in Chicago and rare in Texas—hey dummy, it's because Texans have guns", quote by Dinesh D'Souza

myntalfloss wrote:

JALLEN wrote:

myntalfloss wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

myntalfloss wrote:Does anyone else think we're kind of expressing a cognitive dissonance? We have insisted for years that 'guns don't kill people, people do',(which I firmly believe) and yet when Obama, (sorry, Satan) suggests checking out the people, not the guns, we get our panties in a wad. Is there anything that we law-abiding gun owners will accept without defaulting to the ‘black helicopters’ scenario?

They need to focus on enforcing the laws already in effect. There are plenty of known armed criminals that are running lose killing and robbing people. They need to focus on the criminals and leave the law abiding alone

I agree about focusing on laws in effect and known criminals. The problem seems to be with the unknown criminal. Most of these asshats that are giving us a bad name have a history of bad behavior but not until they act out with a gun do they become known. Background checks don't give me heartburn and I'd love to see a mandatory sentence for a crime with a gun to be stacked on top of any other sentences.

There are laws on the books for that, with mandatory prison time, but these are usually the first to be dropped in plea negotiations, according to many working on both sides of the crime sausage factory.

I don't know how you make it mandatory that filed charges cannot be dropped, or that the prosecution MUST file all possible charges. You can't ban plea bargaining without a hideous increase in judges and courtrooms and court appointed lawyers.

Shooting them in the act is the most efficient, no inefficient trial proceedings, no expensive prison stays, no bogus rehab programs, no recidivism, no probation foolishness, and you are pretty sure to shoot the right perp, no alibis about being in Peoria that night.

I'm with you on the difficulty of trying to put those kind of mandetory laws in effect but it could be done. As in the forfiture of property in drug cases.

Shooting the on the spot would certainly give me the warm and fuzzies. I often thought that what they should do with hijackers. Lead them off the plane and shoot 'em on the tarmac. If you think mandetory sentences would be hard to enact, can you imagine getting that passed.

And then there's the issue that most criminals are not caught in the act and given Texas' piss-poor record of getting capital cases overturned, there' d have to a big Mulligan clause in the law to cover the shooting of innocent people. But hey, can't make an omlet w/o breaking a few eggs, right?

Forfeitures without one being adjudicated and found guilty should not be happening. I don't think comparing automatic disqualification without people being adjudicated and found guilty of something helps you argument. Due you not have any regard for due process?

cb1000rider wrote:

parabelum wrote:

canvasbck wrote: If your looking for compromise, here is my idea of compromise, and one that may make a difference in gun crimes:
1. Develop an online background check system accessible by citizens, straight up yes or no. No details

100% agree with you - I believe I've proposed the same sort of solution. It's a good idea. Red light / Green light. That's all you get. I'd add the ability to "clear" firearm serial numbers. Make it a requirement for a private sale. If you sell to a "red" guy, you're liable criminally. If you sell to a "green" guy - you indemnified civil/criminal.

canvasbck wrote: 2. Require the background check be done for all sales at gunshows and internet gun sales, face to face individual sales not subject to background checks.
(anti's should love 1 and 2)

Politically, I'd position this differently. I'd agree to background checks for "all transactions" and ask for something in return. Essentially, if we require private parties to clear the person they're selling to and require all other ypes of transactions to be FFL, that covers all the cases. We can call it "universal background" or whatever. It really changes very little, other than closing the private party loophole - in return you protect buyers and sellers. Even if I got nothing in return, I'd want to be able to validate who I'm selling to.

What piece of information do you guys think the citizen accessed background check system should be based off of? I'd rather not give random person my SSN in order to buy a gun privately, but to be a national system I don't know if they could use something issued by the state like a DL. There are other identifiers, like full name and DOB, place of birth, etc, but all of these are PI that can easily be abused in the wrong hands.

bnc wrote: What piece of information do you guys think the citizen accessed background check system should be based off of? I'd rather not give random person my SSN in order to buy a gun privately, but to be a national system I don't know if they could use something issued by the state like a DL. There are other identifiers, like full name and DOB, place of birth, etc, but all of these are PI that can easily be abused in the wrong hands.

Lots of sellers ask for CHL. I agree though, SS# is probably too much. How about DL? That's pretty much public info these days..

cb1000rider wrote:

parabelum wrote: Maybe under different administration I'd feel more at ease, but this one, no sir.

I completely understand unease and distrust. I'm there with you. I'm quite willing to say "do nothing" though, although I understand why many people are.

canvasbck wrote: If your looking for compromise, here is my idea of compromise, and one that may make a difference in gun crimes:
1. Develop an online background check system accessible by citizens, straight up yes or no. No details

100% agree with you - I believe I've proposed the same sort of solution. It's a good idea. Red light / Green light. That's all you get. I'd add the ability to "clear" firearm serial numbers. Make it a requirement for a private sale. If you sell to a "red" guy, you're liable criminally. If you sell to a "green" guy - you indemnified civil/criminal.

canvasbck wrote: 2. Require the background check be done for all sales at gunshows and internet gun sales, face to face individual sales not subject to background checks.
(anti's should love 1 and 2)

Politically, I'd position this differently. I'd agree to background checks for "all transactions" and ask for something in return. Essentially, if we require private parties to clear the person they're selling to and require all other ypes of transactions to be FFL, that covers all the cases. We can call it "universal background" or whatever. It really changes very little, other than closing the private party loophole - in return you protect buyers and sellers. Even if I got nothing in return, I'd want to be able to validate who I'm selling to.

canvasbck wrote: 3. Repeal the NFA (no need to restrict access to class III weapons for citizens who have been background checked)

Honestly, I don't care... Probably politically untenable currently, but I'd take it if I could get it. I'd like a silencer for the backyard, without having to spend $900 on a 10/22 after your done with all the NFA drama. Class-3 stuff is cool - but again, it's touchy.

canvasbck wrote: 4. Increase mandatory minimums for crimes committed with firearms

Don't agree with mandatory minimums - they get used for purposes and cases that they don't fit and take away judges ability to use their brains. I also don't think they dissuade criminals. If jail terms reduced crimes, we'd have cranked 'em up already.

canvasbck wrote: 5. National shall issue concealed carry

100% onboard...

What administration is currently in power is irrelevant to "trust." Even if you could trust the current administration everything could change with the next....with a pen and phone.

Online background check without details....I assume this means details in and yes or no out. Any online system like that is subject to being hacked. OPM can't even keep their employee information secure. I just don't have that much "trust" since the Feds have already proven they can't keep private information secure.

Background checks on all transactions....how are you going to prove you sold to a "green light" for this hypothetical indemnification unless a record is kept of every transaction, including the serial number of the gun? And what's the point...since only those who obey the law will use the system in the first place? Criminals aren't going to be doing background checks. Is the seller then going to be responsible for determining the validity of whatever ID is presented....seems like that would have to be a requirement for indemnification.

NFA....silencers are legal and cheap and available without restriction in many of the liberal anti-gun utopias so why should repeal of that be "touchy?" Seems to me you're just admitting that the anti gunners are not going to give ANY ground so real compromise is not possible.

Mandatory minimums...I'm not necessarily for them, at least in some cases, but the problem being addressed isn't judges using their brains or ruling in accordance with the particular circumstances, it's liberal judges who pass out light sentences in furtherance of their "social justice" agenda.

Serial numbers passing through any government agency = registration.

National shall issue carry....never going to happen on any terms that would be acceptable, and would be a dangerous precedent for federalization if it did.

cb1000rider wrote:

bnc wrote: What piece of information do you guys think the citizen accessed background check system should be based off of? I'd rather not give random person my SSN in order to buy a gun privately, but to be a national system I don't know if they could use something issued by the state like a DL. There are other identifiers, like full name and DOB, place of birth, etc, but all of these are PI that can easily be abused in the wrong hands.

Lots of sellers ask for CHL. I agree though, SS# is probably too much. How about DL? That's pretty much public info these days..

So you want them to have your name and address? In some states, like Oklahoma, your DL number is your SSN (used to be you could refuse use of your SSN if you knew that option existed, but I don't know if that's true in other states that use your SSN). I'm reminded of a line in Ronin where some illegal guns were about to be purchased and the buyer tells the seller...just because we're buying guns doesn't mean we don't have any.

Where is the DL public info database....I'd like to look some up?

VMI77 wrote: So you want them to have your name and address?

I don't care. I'm not expecting anonymity as a buyer or seller if we are going to have a means to red-light / green-light private sales. I'm as anonymous as my license plate. I'll trade someone knowing my name/address in order to make sure I'm not buying a stolen gun and as a seller to know that I'm not selling to someone who is on the naughty list.

Consider today - if I roll up in the Walmart parking lot and do a transaction, all you need to do is get my license plate and look that up via a VTR-275 form. If you don't want to wait, you can use one of the private DBs (like Publicdata.com).

VMI77 wrote: In some states, like Oklahoma, your DL number is your SSN (used to be you could refuse use of your SSN if you knew that option existed, but I don't know if that's true in other states that use your SSN). I'm reminded of a line in Ronin where some illegal guns were about to be purchased and the buyer tells the seller...just because we're buying guns doesn't mean we don't have any.

Luckily TX doesn't do that. OK is behind the times. Not that long ago FAA pilot license numbers were SS# and were public-ally accessible, so you could look up Name, address, DOB, SS all in one place. Nice, huh?

VMI77 wrote: Where is the DL public info database....I'd like to look some up?

License plate lookup is VTR-275. I didn't see a TXDOT form for DL number lookup, but using a private DB (publicdata.com) - it's relatively easy to get starting with some basic info like a license plate. Largely publicdata gets their info via the same means that make forms available to the public. The form way just takes longer.

cb1000rider wrote: I'll trade someone knowing my name/address in order to make sure I'm not buying a stolen gun and as a seller to know that I'm not selling to someone who is on the naughty list.

You can do that right now by only selling to those with a CHL or someone known to you. On the buying side how are you going to know a gun isn't stolen without checking the serial number? Even then you'd only know if that gun had been reported stolen and the serial number recorded in some database.

cb1000rider wrote:Consider today - if I roll up in the Walmart parking lot and do a transaction, all you need to do is get my license plate and look that up via a VTR-275 form. If you don't want to wait, you can use one of the private DBs (like Publicdata.com).

Maybe you're so authorized but most people aren't. The only way I could do it is by lying and committing a 3rd degree felony. I read the form....personal data is only given to permitted users and seeing someone's license plate in the Walmart parking lot doesn't qualify as a permitted user.

How about making this a lot simpler: people who aren't eligible to purchase firearms should remain locked up in prison.

If we don't trust them with firearm, why should we trust them with other hundred thousands of things that they can use to murder us?

Stupid wrote:How about making this a lot simpler: people who aren't eligible to purchase firearms should remain locked up in prison.
If we don't trust them with firearm, why should we trust them with other hundred thousands of things that they can use to murder us?

Meaning we lock all felons up indefinitely? Outside of the Wall-street guys who aren't currently in prison, I definitely don't agree. Why not?

1) We already lock more people up per population than any other civilized country. I'm not sure that it's working beyond feeding companies that live off the prison system and creating media bullets for politicians that are "tough on crime". Sure doesn't seem to be deterring anyone in Chicago.

2) I don't want to pay for it personally. Or, in reality, I don't want my kids to pay for it. Figure out a way for it to finance itself and I'll object less. We're already spending a bunch of money that we don't have doing things enforcing laws that aren't working.

3) The reality of our legal system affords people with wealth much better outcomes than those without. I don't think that's the way our founding fathers intended it to work. Were you prepared to mount a reasonably financed legal defense when you were 20 years old? I know I wasn't. That's easily taken advantage of and manipulated.

4) Statistically are non-violent felons really that likely to murder us? (You're talking about all felons)

5) I think this idea is a nod to the theory that our prison system doesn't rehabilitate. Agree with you there, if that's part of what you're saying.

cb1000rider wrote:

Stupid wrote:How about making this a lot simpler: people who aren't eligible to purchase firearms should remain locked up in prison.
If we don't trust them with firearm, why should we trust them with other hundred thousands of things that they can use to murder us?

Meaning we lock all felons up indefinitely? Outside of the Wall-street guys who aren't currently in prison, I definitely don't agree. Why not?

1) We already lock more people up per population than any other civilized country. I'm not sure that it's working beyond feeding companies that live off the prison system and creating media bullets for politicians that are "tough on crime". Sure doesn't seem to be deterring anyone in Chicago.

2) I don't want to pay for it personally. Or, in reality, I don't want my kids to pay for it. Figure out a way for it to finance itself and I'll object less. We're already spending a bunch of money that we don't have doing things enforcing laws that aren't working.

3) The reality of our legal system affords people with wealth much better outcomes than those without. I don't think that's the way our founding fathers intended it to work. Were you prepared to mount a reasonably financed legal defense when you were 20 years old? I know I wasn't. That's easily taken advantage of and manipulated.

4) Statistically are non-violent felons really that likely to murder us? (You're talking about all felons)

5) I think this idea is a nod to the theory that our prison system doesn't rehabilitate. Agree with you there, if that's part of what you're saying.

You missed a big one....an important aspect of our legal system is the notion that punishment is fashioned to fit the crime and proportional. Many non-violent crimes are felonies. You can be convicted of a felony for lying to the government. If every penalty means life long incarceration then a law breaker may as well go all out and not limit the extent of his criminality. Why leave a witness after a robbery for instance?

Furthermore, why should someone who has never acted violently against another person be denied the right and means to defend himself and his family? I don't even agree that all felons should be denied the right to own guns....certainly the violent ones but there are lots of felonies that don't include any kind of violent act or show any propensity to violence.

The failure to distinguish between different acts of criminality isn't the rule of law, it's tyranny, the absence of the rule of law.